How do you feel about religious humor in Second Life?

[Gatogateau]

3 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

The reference to yourself and Seicher was more about a chosen film to see rather than the "humour" part. As two refined, intellectuals, I'd expect it to be Bong Joon Ho's (or whatever he's called!) "Parasite",.....rather than my less refined choice of "anything with Arnold in it!"  😆
 

 

Yeah, never gonna happen. I prefer to see which direction my future scars are coming from tyvm!

Huh, I was thinking more along the lines of :::cough::: tasteful porn....  I did enjoy Parasite though.  True Lies  was good.

[Gatogateau]

Btw, tasteful kitty porn

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

26 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

in order to better hear the lyrics

Again, content warning. This is a merciless and obscene (but by no means stupid or baseless) attack on the Catholic Church and the Pope.

Personally, however, I find it awfully hard not to agree with it.

https://genius.com/Tim-minchin-the-pope-song-lyrics

ETA: To be clear, this is explicitly not an attack on anyone's faith or on the general tenets and beliefs of the Church. It is a satire on a very particular, and extremely well-documented, institutional response to known abuses within that institution.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Dano Seale]

9 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Btw, tasteful kitty porn

The last time I saw anything like that was way back in the 70's....and it got banned! So we wouldn't have gotten in!  😂
 

[Lyssa Greymoon]

3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I hope you read my other post, Luna, regarding Paul and his appointed 13th apostle-ship. 

Have you alerted every Christian denomination ever of this?

[Madelaine McMasters]

41 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The nastiness of this is, to my mind, justified by the subject. As brutal and, frankly, unfair as this satire is, the target is vastly more horrifying.

https://youtu.be/vjJ_b8isMzc

I'm conflicted over that clip. If the point of the satire is to elicit change, I wonder if it works. Might it actually victimize itself with semantic satiation? George Carlin eventually did.

I share your horror over the Catholic Church and hope it is safely repaired or dismantled, but I don't think that clip will do anything but to get the faithful (of many religions) to dig in their heels in revulsion. I try to avoid having my humor work against me.

Mea Maxima Culpa, though hardly humorous, seems more effective to me.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Fauve Aeon]

[kiramanell]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The whole point of showcasing this kind of weirdness -- what Letterman used to call "Stupid Human Tricks" -- is in itself kind of nasty and mean-spirited, because the humour derives in part from showcasing the supposed ridiculousness and pointlessness of what these people are doing. And it does so by measuring their manias against a constructed "norm" to which the rest of us belong: "Hey, I find this ridiculous and funny! Just like everyone else who's laughing! I belong in the ranks of "sensible" and "normal" people too!" So, it is not merely holding people up to ridicule for its entertainment value, but also actively defining an "inside" of "cool kids" by exhibiting those whom it very showily excludes from that category.

I don't need to see people being humiliated publicly to be entertained. And as much to the point, I am deeply suspicious of any sort of exercise that works to make me and others feel smugly superior and complacent about how much I "belong." At its best, humour creates community through a shared enjoyment of incongruity: when we laugh together, we are recognizing our affinities, and we come closer together. But I don't like it much when the mechanism for showing who is "in" is exhibiting those whom we are supposed to identify as being "out."

That said . . . I kind of love Carson in this, because, although he's playing the game, he's also sweet and gentle and kind and courteous to her. I'm not particularly nostalgic for the humour of a half century ago, per se, but it does seem to me that American comedy and humour took a strange turn when Letterman, smart and funny as he is, took over from Carson. The humour suddenly became a whole lot meaner in spirit. And I'm sorry for that.

 

** Says to self: when Scylla starts posting against your position, it's usually a good time to quit. And now I will proceed anyway, against my better judgment **

I so want to disagree with you, and I do. AND I don't.

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone thinking it's cool to make fun of mentally disabled people, or those afflicted with serious mental illnesses, like those hoarders Seicher mentioned. That's not fun. But what about ppl saying they sweated Elvis thru their T-shirt? See, this is where it gets tricky. Because there's a flip-side to endlessly 'respecting' what ppl believe, namely that enabling these people doesn't really help them per se. My mom had a lady friend once, who suddenly believed in goblins. No kidding. She said she saw them, and was talking to them on a regular basis. And she got really mad when ppl dared to tell her goblins don't exist. That woman obviously was delusional, and needed someone to pull her out, not push her further in.

And that's really where I stand on the toast thing. I do not think it particularly healthy to not poke a little fun of it. I'm not one to sincerely say "Uh-huh, yes, that's really Jesus!" Rather, a wee humor, to me, is a good way to try and snap them out of it a bit. Like "C'mon, you gotta be kidding me, right?! Obviously that's just a coincidence."

There's something else ppl do, like "I'm sure it feels very real to you." I never do that either, and find such pseudo-validation abhorrent, really. I do not believe Jesus is in that toast, nor that Elvis appeared in that guy's T-shirt. And I do not think saying so makes me mean-spirited. Or for even saying I can't take that stuff seriously. I'm that gal who will tell the Empress she's not wearing any clothes, and the anti-vaxxers they're insane.

Edited May 24, 2020 by kiramanell
Typo

[FairreLilette]

1 minute ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Have you alerted every Christian denomination ever of this?

It's true.  Jesus never said homosexuals nor fornicators cannot get into the Kingdom of God.  The Gospels say: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So, if I did, who I am to say someone cannot believe in the Epistles of Paul wherein most of them start, I, Paul, write this letter.  Paul is a collection of letters.  

[Luna Bliss]

13 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I hope you read my other post, Luna, regarding Paul and his appointed 13th apostle-ship.   

The above is still from Puritanical American belief in the Epistles of Paul from the 1600's to purify the church of England through repentance and is still what American Christianity is about today.  And, what really started the Puritanical beliefs was so clergy men could marry as opposed to being celibate as Roman Catholic Priests are.  And, that is the truth, simply so men could marry.  You don't suppose this continued belief in Paul has anything to do with money? not to mention it's nothing Jesus ever said.  

BTW, why can't you move here?  You'd like it better except maybe for the pollution and it's expensive to live here real estate wise.  But clothing/food are still able to be found for reasonable prices or shop on the internet.    

You know heterosexuals were an abomination too as fornicators.  Are we over-turned yet completely if we have sex outside of marriage according to Paul?   No, probably.  But, what does your heart say about it?  Mine says no we are not an abomination.  

Paul is the one who decided who can get into the Kingdom of God in the Epistles of Paul which are after The Gospels.  Paul, the 13th Apostle.  That's all manipulated by man stuff for control and shared monies.  This thread will probably get shut down and I haven't read the last four pages or so yet.  

Well I'm afraid I'm not into hashing that out anymore, though I was at one time. There is an essence in all religions (as you have pointed out), and it is 'love'. So that's what I want to focus on now.  How does one become more loving? How can they BE that...experience it.

I practice Yoga (not just the body positions, but the meditation part) in an attempt to know love better. Interestingly, one of our avatars in the line of avatar gurus on our altar is Jesus. There are 5 yoga masters and Jesus. Now I am interested in how Vedic philosophy is very similar to the essence of Christianity -- the love part.

I can't move to CA because it's too expensive there!  If I did, I'd go to SF where my daughter and grandson live, not sunny but the ocean sure is beautiful. It's a place where, at least it was in the past, you could walk around with a sack on your head and people would smile and wave instead of running away in horror because you weren't conforming to some norm.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

I'm that gal who will tell the Empress she's not wearing any clothes, and the anti-vaxxers they're insane.

And you'd be so very wrong about the anti-vaxxers, potentially driving them deeper into their beliefs. They are absolutely sane. They're intelligent. They're witty. They are kind and caring and... misinformed.

We're all misinformed about something. To question their sanity simply reveals your own ignorance and ends the discussion. You no longer have credibility.

Don't do that!

[Luna Bliss]

There are some churches with great signs!

 

[Nalates Urriah]

22 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Prove your point then because I said Jesus said to love one another and that was all I needed to know and I also said I don't believe in the Bible.  It was written by man for man.  The Gospel message was if you believe you are saved to put it basically plus Jesus striking down the law of Moses.  Now are you asking 'do I believe in the Gospels as though not written by men'?  The Gospel's were written by men but I don't think them as manipulated nor twisted as the rest of the Bible which in regards to The Epistles of Paul are actually a collection of letters.

As far as humor should it hurt others?  I still pretty much think as far as SL...keep it on your own parcel.  As far as RL, I think no...I don't think humor that is hurtful is good nor even funny.    

In talking to @Gatogateau I used you as an example of how little the often vociferous people know about their subject. Gatogateau takes a bit of exception to my saying few actually know what they are talking about. Gat could be right. But, my experience is 'very few' accurately describes what I experience.

I suspect few actually noticed your self contradictions and admitted acknowledgement of what you don't know. You were such an appropoe example I couldn't pass up quoting. 

Is harmful humor good? Bad? Actually harming others... is seldom a good thing. But even 'harm' has its beneficial uses. If you can avoid laughing at any joke that might harm someone somewhere... you are exceptional... and likely boring. Humans have laughed at others and their misfortunate throughout recorded history. I haven't seen anything to suggest human nature has changed.

[kiramanell]

2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

And you'd be so very wrong about the anti-vaxxers, potentially driving them deeper into their beliefs. They are absolutely sane. They're intelligent. They're witty. They are kind and caring and... misinformed.

We're all misinformed about something. To question their sanity simply reveals your own ignorance and ends the discussion. You no longer have credibility.

Don't do that!

 

No, they're insane. Wity and caring, possibly (but irrelevant); but definitely, literally insane: "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction."

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

appropoe

that's a horribly bad misspelling of that word.

just sayin

[Madelaine McMasters]

17 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

 

No, they're insane. Wity and caring, possibly (but irrelevant); but definitely, literally insane: "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction."

I believe you are wrong. They're worried, perhaps frightened, but hardly insane. The harder you argue your point with me, the more credibility you'll lose, with me and others.

ETA:

https://www.nj.com/healthfit/2015/02/to_vaccinate_or_not_to_vaccinate_psychology_offers.html

And more broadly: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

Simple if you feel like doing it, then do it. Dont worry if it offends a few people. For there is nothing in SL that has not offended someone somewhere at sometime.

No matter how light hearted or soft or funny or humorous you meant it to be someone will get upset and call you out for it. You cannot let what others think of you control you.

Be you, do you and the rest.. who cares what think or feel about it.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

14 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I'm conflicted over that clip. If the point of the satire is to elicit change, I wonder if it works. Might it actually victimize itself with semantic satiation? George Carlin eventually did.

I share your horror over the Catholic Church and hope it is safely dismantled, but I don't think that clip will do anything but to get the faithful (of many religions) to dig in their heels in revulsion. I try to avoid having my humor work against me.

Mea Maxima Culpa, though hardly humorous, seems more effective to me.

You're absolutely right, but I think we're talking apples and oranges here, Maddy. Mea Maxima Culpa is, for all intents and purposes, a "documentary," albeit a dramatized one. It attempts to persuade by convincing you through "fact" and logic. (Of course, that's a bit of a fiction, right? These things are always also rhetorical exercises, so they are selective in the information they provide, and they are couched in terms that are more likely to produce an emotional response. This, after all, is a dramatization.) 

Satire like Minchin's is art, and an objective, fact- or logic-driven approach to its subject is only one part of its arsenal. Art also isn't necessarily about effecting "change" in the sense that you mean it. As Auden wrote (emphasis added),

Quote

For poetry makes nothing happen: it survives
In the valley of its making where executives
Would never want to tamper, flows on south
From ranches of isolation and the busy griefs,
Raw towns that we believe and die in; it survives,
A way of happening, a mouth.

Art, as Auden conceives it anyway, is a "witness" to what he calls the "human position." It's not a polemic, so you have to judge it by different criteria, because it's trying to do something different. (Lots of writers, especially in the past, would argue that literature is supposed to effect change, but they would still concede that it does so in a very different manner than a documentary would, and that it's not about "change" imagined as, for instance, a kind of policy shift. Complicated subject, though.)

Satire almost never converts the people it identifies as "the problem," because it characterizes them in such brutal and grotesque way. It can be about "swaying" the undecided, but mostly, I think, it's about giving concrete shape to an exacting consensus among those whose "side" it is taking. I find satire highly problematic: it's sometimes like taking a chainsaw to a patient where what is required is a scalpel. But, it's a thing, and the best satire succeeds admirably at what it intends to accomplish -- which is not necessarily what you or I think it should be trying to accomplish.

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Be you, do you and the rest.. who cares what think or feel about it.

Some people don't like to hurt others if they can help it.

[Nalates Urriah]

5 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

No, they're insane. Wity and caring, possibly (but irrelevant); but definitely, literally insane: "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction."

By that definition of insane all those that close their minds and hold to a single viewpoint without question are insane.

We have a huge amount of information that giving combined vaccines to the very young in a single dose can be harmful. That information is suppressed by corporate media and the medical community. Telling a group of parents they have to do that in the face of significant stats is totalitarianism. The single injection thing is a financial thing. The government philosophy that everyone is confined because it may save a single life is not at work here. What's up with that?

 Requiring vaccination for specific diseases before being admitted to public school is reasonable. That the child has to take them all in a single dose isn't. Are you aware of any of this?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

Be you, do you and the rest.. who cares what think or feel about it.

The utter narcissism and/or solipsism of your ethical approach to others pretty much says everything I might ever need to know about you.

Have fun in your bubble.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Some people don't like to hurt others if they can help it.

Everyone gets hurt at some point or another by someone, here or elsewhere. it cannot be stopped. Its how you react to that hurt that decides who you will be later on.

Everyone hurts someone intentionally or not at some point or another, this too cannot be prevented. No matter how much you might try to not hurt someone, you will at some point. You cant live in fear or guild or remorse of doing so.

Everyone here gives lessons to others, some through hurt.

hurt is not always bad, it teaches us, and improves us and makes as grow and change where needed.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The utter narcissism and/or solipsism of your ethical approach to others pretty much says everything I might ever need to know about you.

Have fun in your bubble.

still at it I see. keep it up.. please.. dont change.. otherwise you would be dull and boring to be around or deal with. Your lack of emotional maturity is evident by how you respond to someone you know nothing about.

I am not changing who I am to suit you or anyone else ever. cannot handle it that is a YOU problem and not a me problem.

You cannot shame me into being something you prefer. It doesn't work that way with me.

[kiramanell]

1 minute ago, Nalates Urriah said:

By that definition of insane all those that close their minds and hold to a single viewpoint without question are insane.

 

That may actually be true, although society probably wouldn't label them all as such. But when there's an overwhelming mount of scientific evidence and logic stacked against you, yet you want to believe something else nonetheless (typically something which may endanger you or others), and you appear to have lost a sound/sane way of reasoning, then 'insane' is as good a term as any other.

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Some people don't like to hurt others if they can help it.

Everyone gets hurt at some point or another by someone, here or elsewhere. it cannot be stopped. Its how you react to that hurt that decides who you will be later on.

Everyone hurts someone intentionally or not at some point or another, this too cannot be prevented. No matter how much you might try to not hurt someone, you will at some point. You cant live in fear or guild or remorse of doing so.

Everyone here gives lessons to others, some through hurt.

hurt is not always bad, it teaches us, and improves us and makes as grow and change where needed.

I only hope you don't feel fine about expelling gas in a crowded elevator and decide you are teaching others to deal with their pain.